From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60A1B1B27C; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:52:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BZRhpWcw" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EEE9C433C8; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:52:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1698072742; bh=N+mEvsUn9hb5dl2kkVXdV0pJt+j0xGfTKcLa/eilMjc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BZRhpWcw6usXSKAvf6kpfwitdS3qwOLDsOErhlYiw9+HZnLSCwvg12IG0EmtVbPgP aV/0LUxRAOOLKXCwecMM4bOQ5BmEa4wHELcH+MCQezcNWCK3AURXYfhWlKdcxZ7aQG +I+uwVDZT1NJYVFTGPH3qJ5eazLqNz7airCst+ZGuDGraEM92TBFJ3UZPBoNY9DBlC XkVGI+NR+W8TKxuUg+/odCs7tbsg6Xo/mIS4CqOy7U3rPk4zGG44Gf9CI71Y0n4GyE GfIxdBggJdXj0z94ngJvmypzf1YXF84FJjJh11Z4HjRtF6NHkciGgy0ycwhNlcZOq2 CAFfp+byz7Rew== Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Philip Li Cc: "Nambiar, Amritha" , , kernel test robot , , Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v5 01/10] netdev-genl: spec: Extend netdev netlink spec in YAML for queue Message-ID: <20231023075221.0b873800@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <169767396671.6692.9945461089943525792.stgit@anambiarhost.jf.intel.com> <202310190900.9Dzgkbev-lkp@intel.com> <20231020150557.00af950d@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 09:53:03 +0800 Philip Li wrote: > > Some of them are bogus. TBH I'm not sure how much value running > > checkpatch in the bot adds. It's really trivial to run for the > > It is found there're quite some checkpatch related fix commits on > mainline. Those changes are mostly for old code, aren't they? It'd be useful to do some analysis of how long ago the mis-formatted code has been introduced. Because if new code doesn't get fixes there's no point testing new patches.. > Thus the bot wants to extend the coverage and do shift > left testing on developer repos and mailing list patches. I understand and appreciate the effort. I think that false positive has about a 100x the negative effect of a true positive. If more than 1% of checkpatch warnings are ignored, we should *not* report them to the list. Currently in networking we fully trust the build bot and as soon as a patch set gets a reply from you it gets auto-dropped from our review queue. It'd be quite bad if we have to double check the reports. Speaking of false positive rate - we disabled some checks in our own use of checkpatch: https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/blob/master/tests/patch/checkpatch/checkpatch.sh#L6-L12 and we still get about 26% false positive rate! (Count by looking at checks that failed and were ignored, because patch was merged anyway). A lot of those may be line length related (we still prefer 80 char limit) but even without that - checkpatch false positives a lot. And the maintainer is not very receptive to improvements for false positives: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231013172739.1113964-1-kuba@kernel.org/ > But as you mentioned above, we will take furture care to the output > of checkpatch to be conservative for the reporting. FWIW the most issues that "get through" in networking are issues in documentation (warnings for make htmldocs) :(